PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Highways and Transit.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Dec 1, 2011
Safe Roads for America Act of 2011 - Requires the Secretary of Transportation to modify the target compliance dates for the following minimum retroreflectivity level standards: (1) implementation and continued use of an assessment or management method that is designed to maintain traffic sign retroreflectivity at or above the established minimum levels; (2) replacement of regulatory, warning, and post-mounted guide (except street name) signs identified using the assessment or management method as failing to meet the established minimum levels; and (3) replacement of street name signs and overhead guide signs that are identified using the assessment or management method as failing to meet the established minimum levels.
Requires the Secretary to revise the notice of proposed amendments published in the Federal Register on August 31, 2011, to incorporate the new target compliance dates.
Includes measures designed to meet a state-established performance standard, federal regulation, or requirement contained in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices relating to minimum levels of retroreflectivity as projects for purposes of the highway safety improvement program.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Allows a maximum 100% federal share of the costs of construction related to maintaining minimum levels of retroreflectivity of highway signs or pavement markings.
Directs the Secretary to issue standards for the use of funds apportioned to a state for highway safety improvement projects to upgrade highway signs and pavement markings in order to meet or exceed minimum maintained levels of retroreflectivity. Requires such standards to prohibit fund use for maintenance activities.
People & committees
Rep. Johnson, Henry C. "Hank," Jr. [D-GA-4] · D–GA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Highways and Transit.
Referred to the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Aug 14, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.3536 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.3536 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.3536 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.3536 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.